<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>THE FIRST AND LAST FREEDOM CHAPTER 15 'THE THINKER AND THE THOUGHT'</TITLE>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="k.css"></HEAD><BODY>
<TABLE align=center border=0 width=450><TR><TD align=center height=80><br>
<FONT size=5 color=black><B>THE FIRST AND LAST FREEDOM CHAPTER 15 'THE THINKER AND THE THOUGHT'</B></FONT><br><br><br><DIV class='PP2'>IN ALL OUR experiences, there is always the experiencer, the observer, who is gathering to himself more and more or denying himself.  Is that not a wrong process and is that not a pursuit which does not bring about the creative state?  If it is a wrong process, can we wipe it out completely and put it aside?  That can come about only when I experience, not as a thinker experiences, but when I am aware of the false process and see that there is only a state in which the thinker is the thought.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
So long as I am experiencing, so long as I am becoming, there must be this dualistic action; there must be the thinker and the thought, two separate processes at work; there is no integration, there is always a centre which is operating through the will of action to be or not to be - collectively, individually, nationally and so on.  Universally, this is the process.  So long as effort is divided into the experiencer and the experience, there must be deterioration.  Integration is only possible when the thinker is no longer the observer.  That is, we know at present there are the thinker and the thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experienced; there are two different states.  Our effort is to bridge the two.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The will of action is always dualistic.  Is it possible to go beyond this will which is separative and discover a state in which this dualistic action is not?  That can only be found when we directly experience the state in which the thinker is the thought. We now think the thought is separate from the thinker; but is that so?  We would like to think it is, because then the thinker can explain matters through his thought.  The effort of the thinker is to become more or become less; and therefore, in that struggle, in that action of the will, in `becoming', there is always the deteriorating factor; we are pursuing a false process and not a true process.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Is there a division between the thinker and the thought?  So long as they are separate, divided, our effort is wasted; we are pursuing a false process which is destructive and which is the deteriorating factor.  We think the thinker is separate from his thought.  When I find that I am greedy, possessive, brutal, I think I should not be all this.  The thinker then tries to alter his thoughts and therefore effort is made to `become; in that process of effort he pursues the false illusion that there are two separate processes, whereas there is only one process.  I think therein lies the fundamental factor of deterioration.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Is it possible to experience that state when there is only one entity and not two separate processes, the experiencer and the experience?  Then perhaps we shall find out what it is to be creative, and what the state is in which there is no deterioration at any time, in whatever relationship man may be.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I am greedy.  I and greed are not two different states; there is only one thing and that is greed.  If I am aware that I am greedy, what happens?  I make an effort not to be greedy, either for sociological reasons or for religious reasons; that effort will always be in a small limited circle; I may extend the circle but it is always limited.  Therefore the deteriorating factor is there.  But when I look a little more deeply and closely, I see that the maker of effort is the cause of greed and he is greed itself; and I also see that there is no `me' and greed, existing separately, but that there is only greed.  If I realize that I am greedy, that there is not the observer who is greedy but I am myself greed, then our whole question is entirely different; our response to it is entirely different; then our effort is not destructive.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
What will you do when your whole being is greed, when whatever action you do is greed?  Unfortunately, we don't think along those lines.  There is the `me', the superior entity, the soldier who is controlling, dominating.  To me that process is destructive.  It is an illusion and we know why we do it.  I divide myself into the high and the low in order to continue.  If there is only greed, completely, not `I' operating greed, but I am entirely greed, then what happens?  Surely then there is a different process at work altogether, a different problem comes into being.  It is that problem which is creative, in which there is no sense of `I' dominating, becoming, positively or negatively.  We must come to that state if we would be creative.  In that state, there is no maker of effort.  It is not a matter of verbalizing or of trying to find out what that state is; if you set about it in that way you will lose and you will never find.  What is important is to see that the maker of effort and the object towards which he is making effort are the same. That requires enormously great understanding, watchfulness, to see how the mind divides itself into the high and the low - the high being the security, the permanent entity - but still remaining a process of thought and therefore of time.  If we can understand this as direct experience, then you will see that quite a different factor comes into being. </DIV></TD></TR></TABLE></BODY></HTML>
